About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)
, that holds true. what happened here is that hagel's performance at his hearing and some of the questions that have come up, some of the unanswered questions, have dragged that out. there are two factions of republicans who have slowed this down. a group focused solely on hagel wanting more information and that includes the new texas senator ted cruz who has been particularly critical of hagel in raising questions about his ties to foreign groups that might have provided him some salary during the years sips he left the senate. that's been very harsh questioning. on the other hand, there was a small faction of mccain, graham, and ayotte, who wanted more information about benghazi. i just spoke to them, and they said they believe that taking the stand was very effective. they got a letter from the white house that provided them more information. they got testimony from secretary panetta and the joint chiefs chair dempsey, and they believe that added to what the public knows about benghazi and was the right way to go about this. when brennan comes up to be cia director expect another one of
hagel's prospects for running the pentagon are going to hang in limbo for another two weeks as senate republicans get exactly what they want, more time. folks, delay is rarely a good thing when it comes to these fights. also this morning, a deep dive into iran's upcoming election as ahmadinejad heads out of office, the world wants to see which way his successor will take the combative country. >>> and a monumental moment lambs on capitol hill, with the retirement of new jersey senator frank lautenberg, there will be no more world war ii veterans in the u.s. senate. what's that mean for our politics and our national perspective? >>> good morning from washington. it's friday, february 15th, it's t"the daily rundown." i'm chuck todd. president obama is standing by his embattled nominee for secretary of defense, chuck hagel, as hagel's former senate republican colleagues put up a major roadblock yesterday in their attempts to not just delay the nomination, but try to kill it. >> the yeas are 58, the nays are 40. one senator announced present. >> and with that senate vote, chuck hagel came
matthews picks things up right now. >>> the war on chuck hagel. let's play "hardball." ♪ >>> good evening. i'm chris matthews in washington. let me start tonight with this. the breaking news. senate republicans have successfully blocked a vote on chuck hagel. republicans have thrown out so many different reasons for this it's hard to know why they're opposing the man becoming secretary of defense. it's hard to keep up with all their arguments. it's because hagel hasn't accounted for every penny he's made and every single word of every single speech he's ever given. it's because of what he said about israel and iran, maybe, but it's also because of the white house's response to benghazi, perhaps, something obviously, but that was nothing to do with chuck hagel who wasn't in the government at that time. well, today republican threats to take the unprecedented step of blocking a presidential cabinet appointment came to fruition, if you will. democrats moved forward with a procedural vote to end debate and pave the way for a final up and down vote. then it failed. it failed to get the 60 vote
>> the war against chuck hagel, let's play "hardball." >> good evening, let me start tonight with this, at least for now, defense secretary. republicans have thrown out so many different reasons. it's hard to keep them all straight. it's because hagel hasn't accounted for every single penny he's made and it's because of what he had to say about israel and iran. but it's also because of the white house's response to benghazi, something that has nothing do with chuck hagel, who wasn't even in the government at the time. today, the unprecedented step came to a head. that failed to get the 60 votes needed. that mob at the gate headed over >> what are republicans really trying to do? nbc's kelly o'donnell is at the capital tonight. let me just tell you this, i'm going to ask you, why are they doing this? why are they holding up a cabinet appointment? >> for some of them, it is about chuck hagel wanting to know more, who were not a part of committee. they just all received. they make it very clear. it's not personal, they say. it is a tool within the rules of the senate. they say t
are dying. middle east peace breaking up. that doesn't matter. the national debt. chuck hagel. that doesn't matter. there's a cruise ship outside of mobile bay. let's get a helicopter on them. >> wait a minute. wait a minute. >> that's quite a move. >> one little problem. >> what? what's that? >> the world didn't actually stop. and other things are happening. and hagel's -- >> oh, okay. >> -- vote was delayed. it will be well over another week before the senate reconsiders the nomination of chuck hagel. >> really? >> at the pentagon. >> this is the first time hearing of this. when did this happen? did they make this decision on the cruise ship? >> no. no, they didn't. it actually happened in washington. >> really? that's fascinating. >> which is its own permanent port-a-potty. >> okay. mika, for those of us that were just sitting there looking at a cruise ship for 24 hours instead of following the real news, why don't you catch us up with what actually happened yesterday in the news. >> republicans blocked a vote yesterday that would have ended the debate and allowed for a final decision
hagel into the defense post he's nominated for in president obama's cabinet and yesterday they left town for nine days. joining me now jake sherman, congressional reporter, molly bald, national political reporter at "the atlantic." molly, today's "new york times" california democrat barbara boxer likened the block that republicans like texas senator ted cruz have put on chuck hagel to mccarthyism. what was the point of prolonging this hagel vote until after everyone reconvenes? >> well, i think that republicans started out with some legitimate questions about this, and they would say they're just trying to get those answered and need more time. it was harry reid who called this vote as sort of an attempt to call their bluff saying this is enough, you're delaying this for no reason but i don't think this is going to help the republicans' image especially when they're going around saying we're not actually trying to stop this nomination. we're not actually filibustering, so what are they doing? i think especially for people who are sick of the sort of washington games, this isn't a good im
Search Results 0 to 11 of about 12 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)